Defense mechanisms against emotional ambivalence incline us to fully embrace one side and fully reject the other -- which makes compromise nearly impossible.

REL Waldman/Flickr

Last summer in Colorado, I pulled into a filling station behind a pickup truck with political stickers on its rear bumper and window. One sticker showed a
red-hued Obama and gave this warning: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid. Another displayed a green hammer and sickle, with this ominous message: Green is the New Red.

Communist Russia used to be Americans' enemy -- over there, across the Atlantic -- but for a large sector of the public, the enemy has now appeared
within our borders: President Obama, who supposedly wants to install a communist regime here in the United States; liberal environmentalists who'll
tyrannize over the rest of us if we're not vigilant. America seems to be engaged in yet another war, but in this one, both sides to the conflict are
domestic.

During wartime, governments often make use of propaganda to instill fear and hatred in their citizens, mobilizing them against an existential threat. On
the domestic warfront, our political parties rely on similar methods to stir up their respective bases. The right in particular makes use of rhetoric more
suited to wartime, rallying its troops against the liberal War on Marriage, War on Family Values, War on Freedom, etc. The supposed Republican War on Women was a rallying cry for the left during the last election.

Such rhetoric reflects a black-and-white, us-versus-them approach that views each debate over taxation, social policy and the role of government not as a problem in need of a solution but a battle within an ongoing war. During warfare, our aim is of course to vanquish the enemy and emerge
victorious; to reach out to your enemy makes you a villainous collaborator, a traitor to your cause. On the right, anyone with the temerity to
suggest that Obama and the Democrats have some redeeming qualities is likely to be attacked from within the party. Just ask Chris Christie.

REL Waldman/Flickr

Propaganda during wartime typically dehumanizes the enemy. Our current political rhetoric likewise relies on two-dimensional caricatures to de-legitimize
the opposition, encouraging us to hate "them." The process is more blatantly vocal on the political right, with the radio voices of conservatism inciting
hatred for cartoon versions of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, members of the liberal press, etc. Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to compare Obama to Adolf Hitler, the epitome of unalloyed
evil. While less obvious, the left has its own set of two-dimensional villains to hate: greedy and heartless bankers, evil corporations, gun-toting
religious freaks.

For both sides, the Other often lacks true dimension. In propaganda, the enemy never has a legitimate point of view that needs to be taken seriously and
balanced against our own views. Hating an enemy leaves no room for complex, ambiguous problems without an obvious solution. It eliminates the uncomfortable
tension that arises from doubt and uncertainty amidst difficult choices.

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that the "test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still
retain the ability to function." Whether it's a question of intelligence, psychological maturity, or emotional capacity, there's little sign of such
activity on the current political front. Instead, our parties encourage us to take refuge in one of those two opposing ideas and reject the other. Complex,
ambiguous perspectives are shunned in favor of absolute, simplistic and immutable beliefs about right and wrong, good versus evil.

For the extreme right, each effort to legislate limits on gun ownership represents an ominous assault on that unquestionable good, the constitutional right
to bear arms. Even universal background checks are an intolerable infringement: according to Ann Coulter, they would eventually lead to the
confiscation of all weapons and the "extermination" of gun rights. Instead of responding with a reasoned argument, she stirs up fear of totalitarian
overreach and incites hatred against Big Government.

Voices on the left sometimes employ similar tactics. Maureen Dowd of TheNew York Timescompared Tea Partiers to suicide bombers. Katrina
vanden Heuvel of TheWashington Post argued that the Republican Party had "strapped a bomb" to the
economy. Peter Goodman of TheHuffington Post likened the debt debate to the Cuban missile crisis, "with the crucial difference
being that we are the ones stacking up the nuclear warheads and threatening to detonate them on ourselves." Suicide bombers and nuclear terrorists are
evil, of course, and you can't negotiate with an enemy bent on your destruction.

As the neurologist Robert Burton has noted
, ambiguity or confusion is so difficult for many of us to bear that we instead retreat from it into a feeling of certainty, believing we know
something without any doubts, even when we actually don't and often can't know. Those of us who have trouble with such discomfort often resort to
black-and-white thinking instead. Rather than feeling uncertain or ambivalent, struggling with areas of gray, we reduce that complexity to either/or.

We may define one idea or point of view as bad (black) and reject it, aligning ourselves with the good (white) perspective. Feelings of
anger and self-righteousness often accompany this process, bolstering our conviction that we are in the right and the other side in the wrong. Hatred for
the rejected point of view keeps ambiguity and uncomfortable complexity from re-entering the field.

Hating an enemy leaves no room for complex, ambiguous problems without an obvious solution.

Black-and-white thinking reflects the psychological process known as splitting. When we feel unable to tolerate the tension aroused by complexity,
we "resolve" that complexity by splitting it into two simplified and opposing parts, usually aligning ourselves with one of them and rejecting the
other. As a result, we may feel a sort of comfort in believing we know something with absolute certainty; at the same time, we've over-simplified a complex
issue.

On the emotional front, splitting comes into play when we feel hostile toward the people we love. Holding onto feelings of love in the presence of anger
and even hatred is a difficult thing for most of us to do. Sometimes hatred proves so powerful that it overwhelms and eclipses love, bringing the
relationship to an end. More often we repress awareness of our hostile feelings; or we might split them off and direct them elsewhere, away from
the people we care about.

In other words, splitting as a psychological defense mechanism resolves emotional ambivalence -- love and hatred toward the same person -- by splitting off
one half of those feelings and directing them elsewhere, away from the loved one.

One of the helpful functions of society is to provide us with outlets for that anger -- to identify places where it's okay to feel and express (split off)
aggression, even hatred. Consider the uses of professional sports, for example, where most spectators identify with one team or competitor and wish to
crush the opponent. Not only does this provide a needed outlet for competitive urges, it also allows us to channel many aggressive feelings away from our
intimate relationships and express them in a safer context.

Warfare, with an identified enemy combatant, may also serve the same function, providing a sanctioned outlet for our aggression. In times of war, splitting
becomes powerfully evident: people at home "come together" more easily, put differences aside and unite against the common enemy. For a time, it can create
a sense of domestic harmony and unification, especially important when confronting an existential threat from the outside.

On the other hand, if we make use of splitting to gin up hatred against a two-dimensional Other, we undermine our ability to think. The enemy is rarely as
monochromatically evil as governments like to portray; the other side often has legitimate complaints against us we might do well to heed. Fomenting hatred
rather than encouraging rational thought may lead us into ill-considered wars we later come to regret.

In politics, to the extent our parties rely more on splitting and hatred than appeals to thought, they create a wartime atmosphere on the domestic front.
We are good, the other side is bad, and we hate them. Preoccupied with vilifying the opposition, we're unable to perceive both sides of an issue
and find a way to accommodate them both, albeit imperfectly. Pursuing total victory takes precedence over problem-solving.

None of this is new, of course. Richard Hofstadter long ago identified the
"paranoid style"
in American politics, tracing it back to the earliest days of the Republic. According to Hofstadter, the politician who speaks from the paranoid
perspective "does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is
always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish."

Such a Manichean world view is the result of splitting: the gray middle ground gives way to absolute black and white, and hatred toward the other side
keeps the split in place. If Hofstadter's description sounds depressingly familiar, it's because the paranoid style is alive and well in America. A hostile
fight-to-the-finish mentality holds sways and the capacity for constructive thought has been its primary victim.

Related Story

You can find evidence of this all-or-nothing wartime approach just about any time you tune into the political news cycle. Right now, we hear it in the
blame game surrounding the sequester as we once again approach the debt ceiling. Speaker Boehner insists that
"the revenue issue is now closed"
and further cuts to the budget are the only way forward. While not as unequivocal as Boehner, Leader Pilosi periodically announces that direct cuts to
benefits are "off the table."

Much of this is political posturing, of course, as each side speaks to its base and tries to stake out the most advantageous position in future
negotiations. Still, the strident my-way-or-the-highway rhetoric makes future compromise exceedingly difficult. How can you return to your troops and admit
you ceded ground without sounding like a traitor? After denouncing the enemy, how can you go back to your base and acknowledge that the other side might
have some valid points?

After fomenting hatred in your supporters, splitting complex reality into simple black and white, how can you possibly ask them to think?

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.